It's looking increasingly like the Screen Actors Guild strike will not happen…or if it does happen, it will be so tepid in number and spirit as to set the union up for a hasty fold. Put simply, the necessary solidarity just ain't there.
If you're interested in the "no strike" viewpoint, you have nosagstrike.com insisting that, given the current economy, this is no time for SAG to be shutting down the town in a quest for gains that the other above-the-line unions were unable to achieve.
I'm not a SAG member but if I were, I don't think I'd buy that argument. There's never a good time for a strike, never a moment when a union with the length and breadth of SAG could take a hike without causing severe economic damage in many different directions. That is, in fact, one of the union's strengths and why its strikes tend to be short. When we writers find it necessary to walk out rather than accept a crappy deal, it takes a while for anyone to notice we're gone. There are always a few scripts completed and you have producers or directors who can write a little and get by for a time. But if Ugly Betty walks off Ugly Betty, production on the show ceases immediately.
It's not a step to be taken lightly…but unions are all about negotiations, and you can't enter into a negotiation without the power to say no. Going on strike is the only meaningful way in which a union says no. Without it, you wind up eating too many crummy deals…like, say, the one that the AMPTP has offered SAG.
It would be nice if we lived in a labor environment where strikes were never necessary. Alas, they occasionally are. A week or two ago on some discussion board, I saw someone say, "There shouldn't be a strike. Both sides should just get together in a room and talk until they come to some sort of agreement." That would be wonderful but that does not happen. The reason anyone's even talking about a strike is because that does not happen. The AMPTP does not do business that way. What's more, they believe that they've taken billions away from the unions by not doing business that way…so they have no interest in changing.
The anti-strike argument I might buy is that SAG is in no shape for the battle. The breach with AFTRA has weakened them, robbed them of that ability to choke off the flow of product to the networks. Infighting has weakened them further…and bad economic news has too many members operating out of too much fear. I don't believe the offer is a good one. I don't even believe it's comparable to what the WGA and DGA accepted. But the union sure doesn't seem to have the capability of doing any better.
One big problem: You have a lot of "name" stars coming out against a strike. In a sense, the views of Tom Hanks and Charlize Theron on this matter shouldn't carry much weight with the SAG membership. Most SAG members have very little in common with the economic concerns of those in the superstar category. Unions bargain for minimums while someone like Hanks has his own lawyers busily negotiating for maximums. This is not to suggest that Hanks and other Big Stars who've come out against the strike are acting only in self-interest…but a strike of the entire union is unlikely to benefit them. It's for the beginners, the day players, the extras, the journeymen, etc. An offer could be very bad for the 99% of the union that will never get near the earning power and clout of Will Smith…but good for, or at least not bad for Will Smith.
Still, it does matter what the George Clooneys of the world think. Not only are they the "face" of SAG to the outside world but they're the soul and spirit within. The producers need actors in general but they need guys like Clooney in a specific sense. You can't have a successful strike without some of them on the picket line. The WGA, before it grabbed up picket signs, did sufficient outreach and informational meetings to get the "A" list screenwriters and TV showrunners largely on board. SAG doesn't seem to have that…or enough of that.
I'd love to see SAG rebound and coalesce and link arms and take a solid stand. Even though a strike at this time might kill a movie project I'm writing, I don't like seeing our town's most powerful union thrashing about, imploding and infighting. This will eventually translate to worse money and working conditions for all of us…or at least all of us who aren't in the top 3% of our job categories. But the Screen Actors Guild in its current state doesn't look fit for any sort of battle and could even do itself serious structural damage if it tries. They should stop looking for a way to win the war and focus on some solution that'll enable them to get out with their limbs intact. This one was lost the day AFTRA decided to go it alone.